Can we be Pentecostal and Emergent?
The question of the relationship between Pentecostalism and the Emerging Church seems to be gaining some traction. This is interesting to me as one who remembers the days when Mark Miller and I tried to meet with all the AG folk at an early Soularize event. The meeting turned out to be just the two of us.
That was almost 5 years ago now. Searching the EmChurch literature, boards, and blogs pretty extensively, I find references to the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement are present, but infrequent and tangential in the main.
There could be several reasons for this, including (I’m going to make a lot of generalizations here, so just hold your nose for a moment):
1. Origins: Early and influential EmChurch authors, webbers, and speakers were almost all from outside the P/C movement. Many were Reformed. Lots of the EmChurch plants were actually SBC under the hood, including significant amounts of low profile capital investment.
2. Comfort: Attending EmChurch events for Pentecostals was never comfortable. Ask someone who was around in the early days (or even today at times) about the discomfort that our presence created for others. They did not seem to know what to do with us.
3. Reductionism: A patronizing reductionism typified some of the early conversation about us in the EmChurch sector. For example, have you ever heard this reasoning?: “postmoderns like experience, pentecostals like experience, therefore, pentecostals will do well among postmoderns.” Part of me wants to respond, “Gee, isn’t root canal an experience, too?” But sarcasm cannot conceal the lack of P/C presence among emerging culture populations. Apparently experience alone is not enough, or we’re not having enough experience, or both.
4. Stereotypes: Some stereotyping has marginalized us. A number of messages I’ve read on the boards basically equate “pentecostal” with “fundamentalist” the nemesis of the EmChurch. If only there were not so many examples of that stereotype being true.
5. Demographics: The burgeoning edge of the P/C movement is among southern hemisphere believers who fit neither the Anglo, male, suburban, twentysomething mold of the EmChurch rank and file, nor the professorial, author/speaker, boomer mode of its early leadership (it’s getting younger).
6. No show: Pentecostals tend to be doers, while a lot of EmChurch influencers tend to be thinkers (this is my patronizing reductionism—sorry). Result: we simply didn’t show up for work when the EmChurch was gaining momentum, largely loosing our opportunity to have a voice in the dialogue. For example, I got a speaking gig at the Emergent/National Pastors Convention meeting in ‘05 because a friend complained to one of the organizers that there were no Pent/Char voices at the event (with a couple exceptions, Todd Hunter being one. Todd is an exception to everything I’m saying here, as are some others). The workshop I presented on Postmodern Pentecostals was attended by about 10 people, but God bless the organizers for including me.
7. Writing: A parallel issue is that Pentecostals, valuing a culture or oral expression, are sometimes ambivalent about education, and tend not to write books very often (with the exception of the megachurch pastor/self-published variety), while the EmChurch highly values theological training and lives for the next influential book on theology, culture, or the Church. Pentecost is a movement of preachers. EmChurch is a movement of writers. You speak at a Pentecostal conference because you can preach. You speak at an EmChurch conference because you can publish.
8. Reactivity: The EmChurch is largely reactive, especially to the megachurch boom of the 80’s and 90’s. Lots of the key influencers were and are refugees from the megas, especially from staff pastor roles. Pentecostals involved in EmChurch, early on in particular, also tended to be “ex” or “post,” i.e., people who felt alienated from the movement (and we have more than enough sins to make this happen) seeking out an alternative view of Christianity free from what they perceive as Pentecostal baggage. Some of this luggage is doctrinal (e.g., our distinctives) some of it is personal (e.g., the dozens of youth camp horror stories I have heard), some of it is experimental (i.e., they got tired of being told what to believe and do, and are looking to explore the faith with greater freedom). Ironically, early Pentecostals would have made some of these same claims about leaving (or being thrown out) of the mainstream churches many of them left to join the movement.
9. Age: Key Pentecostal influencers tend to be in their 50’s and 60’s (look at any of the “talking head” posters for our conferences), while key EmChurch influencers are getting younger and younger, with important books be written by 20 and 30-something authors. Most Pent/Char speakers/writers simply miss the generational window that audiences and publishers now require. [Stanley Grenz was an exception. Stan described himself to me once as a “closet Charismatic.” He was such a blessing to the Church. I miss him.]
10. Color: The growing edge of the P/C movement is among people of color. EmChurch is largely Anglo, but doing better on this issue. The P/C movement at least espouses openness to women in ministry (although we have huge progress that still needs to be made), while many in EmChurch circles (remember, Reformed and SBC under the hood) are ambivalent at best on this. Here again, though, I feel the EmChurch is doing better.
Check it out: A couple of people have written recently on some of these issues. Check out Bryan Thompson’s article on theOOZE, “On Being Pentecostal in the Emerging Church” http://www.theooze.com/articles/article.cfm?id=1229
Bryan is an AG guy working as a young adult pastor at a UMC church here in Springfield.
Also see the blog by Dorcas George commenting on Bryan’s article:
http://pastoretteponderings.blogspot.com/
Dorcas is a pastor in Wisconsin who likes Braveheart and Bach.
[If you have seen anything else out there lately, please post it below.]
Now that I’ve laid out these inflated generalizations, let me put them on a diet:
1. Generalizations are the enemy: It’s hard to have a conversation without them, but they are misleading. I’ve been asked questions like, “is the EmChurch good or bad?” “Well,” I might reply, “is Pentecostalism good or bad?” The only answer with any integrity is, “yes.” Most of the pastors and members of EmChurch venues that I’ve met have no resemblance to the “young liberals” stereotype that my more conservative friends tend to fear so much. Remember, most of these friends are reacting to the sins (real and perceived) of the mainstream evangelical church. Some of them will end up in the liberal camp, but I think most will not. And some have few theological interests, as in the mainstream, they are present within EnChurch because of their cultural prefernces.
2. Definitions are puzzling: If the response to my position is that those not gravitating toward universalism, communitarianism, and voting Democratic are not truly Emergent, then we have reduced our conversation to a debate over definitions. Now that’s really important in one sense, but too often turns into a straw person argument in which I define the EmChurch (or Pentecostals) in a specific way, and then critique that, regardless of its representativeness.
3. Sociologists wanted: We need to think of the EmChurch sociologically, not just spiritually. Could it have happened without the mega movement, without the internet, without youth culture, without North American affluence, etc. How does it compare to other American religious movements? I hope my friend Adam Long will respond here. I would love to hear his impressions.
4. One movement/many sectors?: So perhaps we need to think of the EmChurch as having “sectors” or “neighborhoods” or degrees of “emergence” or “valences” or something. Laying the whole thing out on a conservative to liberal, one-dimensional scale feels primitive, but perhaps it is a small beginning. Several people have suggested typologies. I have one in Off-Road Disciplines. Ed Stetzer has a great one at: http://www.crosswalk.com/faith/pastors/1372534.html
5. It’s the Church: The EmChurch has problems because it is the Church after all, and the Church is often a mess. If you don’t believe this, read just a couple Pauline epistles (say, the letters to the Corinthians) and tell me I’m wrong. This sector is no better nor worse than any other. Pentecostalism has so many painful issues that we hardly have the rocks to throw at anyone else.
6. It’s a love thing: Refusing to love part of the Church is simply not an option we have, whether the object of our scorn be Pentecost of EmChurch. That does not mean that I accept everything that every EmChurch player believes, but then I don’t accept everything that every flavor of Pentecostalism holds to, either. In any event, James tells us that “we all make many mistakes,” so we need to tread lightly when tempted to feel superior enough to start lobbing accusations. If critique is in order, then fine, but it needs to be specific, biblical, even-handed, and expressed from a soft heart. Correction is to be gentle. Otherwise, most of what the world believes about us becomes true.
7. Rookie mistakes: Most of the people I read blasting the EmChurch have almost never actually met anyone who is a part of it. Some have attended a conference or church service and then written a “shock and awe” article in reaction, but these folk tend to come from such a conservative baseline that I suspect they would write the same article if they attended a red state Pentecostal service. I’m not going to peg my response to that of commentators who find a coffee break during Sunday morning to be scandalous.
8. Lost tribes: Pentecostals blew it early on by not engaging the EmChurch movement. Currently, we are not doing well among our own young leaders, so perhaps this is no surprise. Historically, we took the same posture toward the Charismatic renewal, waiting for it to go away, cautioning people about it, and then embracing it, too late, when some of it’s participants sought out our churches. Some Classical Pentecostals are loathe to admit that our revival needs reviving (especially in our Anglo churches), or that the Spirit may be moving in some new way somewhere else (exactly the claim we made when our revival broke out 100 years ago). We need to get into the game. The result could be revitalizing our own future, or at least giving our young leaders an alternative to being postPentecostals.
My impressions here are based on 6 years of traveling among non-traditional churches and leaders, knowing some of the famous ones, but drinking coffee from coast to coast with hundreds of others whose names you wouldn’t recognize, and a couple years of interview research among young pentecostal leaders.
Since mentioning the EmChurch tends to be incendiary, let me leave no room for assumptions: I am painfully orthodox doctrinally, with a Pentecostal identity that is a matter of choice, not of inheritance. I feel unthreatened by having friends who see things differently.
In my experience, young Pentecostal leaders are looking for credible models of the future and for anyone else who is searching for them. I’m trying to connect them to each other so a critical mass can form.
Welcome to the Reader Forum
Bookmark this article using Remarkable!
Off-Road Disciplines
In Off-Road Disciplines, Earl Creps reveals that the on-road practices of prayer and Bible reading should be bolstered by the other kinds of encounters with God that occur unexpectedly—complete with the bumps and bruises that happen when you go “off-road.”
See Earl on Google Video:
Earl Creps—a popular speaker and leader—is director of the Doctor of Ministry program and associate professor at the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary (AGTS) in Springfield, Missouri. He has been a pastor, ministries consultant, and university professor. Along the way, Creps earned a Ph.D. in communication at Northwestern University and a doctor of ministry degree in leadership at AGTS.
What is Earl doing? View or subscribe to Earl Creps' Google calendar. Or learn how to contact him directly.
Add Earl's Journal to
Join The Leading Edge email list:
A free monthly e-newsletter from the Doctor of Ministry Director, Earl Creps. Offers articles, training opportunities, tools, as well as recommended books, websites and other resources. To receive The Leading Edge enter your email address in the form below or request your subscription by emailing dmin@agts.edu. You can download past issues of The Leading Edge as small PDF files from Resources.
Earl, I believe the answer to your question is NO. I have been involved in the conversation for some time and my conclusion is that the EC/EM cherry pick Scriptures to contradict fundamental truths about salvation. I will not be too extensive here but if you do some research you will find they fall perfectly into the description of 2 Peter 2. I hope you do not feel pulled in that direction.
Earl,
Fantastic analysis. I am an A/G youth pastor in Birmingham, Al. I struggle with all the issues mentioned above as far as my relationships. I enjoy meeting all kinds of people and their flavor of faith does not scare me. Neither my faith or the truth of the Gospel is so fragile that it cannot be handled with rough hands. Thanks for the reflections. I also enjoyed hearing you speak at the A/G Youth Conference this fall. If you are ever in Birmingham, Al. stop by and I’ll buy you a cup of coffee.
Paul Turner
I was reading about the Emerging Church, Brian McLaren and Earl Creps. I have not found anything in writing from the Emerging Church condoning the gay lifestyle but the fact that Brian McLaren came to Sherwood AR and spoke at The Open Door Community Church, Sherwood AR, (which is where I live), speaks volumes to me. This is an openly ‘gay and married’ pastor and his partner. Just thought I’d practice being a ‘watcher on the wall’. Shelivs4JC
Earl,
as an AG YP, I have found most of my theological inspiration, and quite frankly, hope that things can change for the better, from writers who could be categorized as emergent. Honestly, I am saddened but not surprised at how critical Pentecostals can be towards many newer spiritual movements in the church given that only 80 years ago (and as recently as 20 years ago in some cases) we were ourselves the object of much scorn from other churches. With that said, there is a growing, and I would venture to guess, significant segment of our younger church goers who simply have seen through what seems to have become the Pentecostal form, but essentially lacks the power we claim we are supposed to have. I’d rather not just walk away from something because it’s broken. That is what emergent leaders seem to be encouraging. . . change where you are instead of migrating to where you feel more comfortable. But on the other hand, to use Rob Bell’s metaphor, I’d rather be inviting other people to jump on a trampoline that allows us to get closer to God than defending a theological wall.
Earl,
I think you’ve described the situation well. Ironically, with an emphasis on the ability of the holy spirit to do life changing things for people, p/c christians seem to be able to offer an edge to missional activity that maybe other models don’t – thinking of someone like Jackie Pullinger.
Rob
p.s. do you talk to jamie smith much?
People make a lot of blanket statements about what it means to be Pentecostal. Frankly, I’m not real sure the PC in general knows who it is at the moment so it would be awfully difficult to answer this question. Theorietically, we know that we’re supposed to be believing and doing A LOT in terms of the charismata and all the cool apostolic stuff. We’ve read the slick reports about missionary zeal and what the Lord has done abroad. . . now the American church is trying to bring itself to some kind of understand in who we are.
Then Emergent rears its head and really poses some problems w/ all our Pentecostal stereotypes. We find the HS breaking out in contemplation, in solitude, at the coffee shop, by the check out counter. . . and we’re pretty slow to say this SPirit stuff is Pentecostal. We need a redefining of church and what it means to be Pentecostal in this generation. THis is not a lowering of the bar experientially or easing back prophetically. . . its simply a huge perspective shift that most are uncomfortable with.
I’m an A/G Senior Pastor in NY and I have to say Earl Creps is nothing more than a false teacher. But many of you progressive (wolves in sheep’s clothing) emergent church leaders leading the blind wouldn’t know that since, none of you have a very good foundation in sound doctrine. Oh goodness sound the alarm (sirens, bells, and whistler going off) yes I said sound doctrine and that is what the emergent movement does not have on its side.
The entire emergent system is the New World Order-One world Anti-Christ religious system that was prophecies in 2Ti 4:4, “And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” And other places.
Earl Creeps should have his credentials removed and he should be thrown out of our A/G seminary as of yesterday. That goes for all the apostates in the A/G who agree with him from the top down. Please do spare me the “New Age semantically attacks” I have heard it all. Stop following the anti-Christ system and get back to the book and stop denying the power thereof with your satanic (emergent) form of godlessness.
Thanks for this article. It spoke to much that I’ve been pondering. I’m completely open to whatever God wants to do individually and in my church to help people who do not know Christ to enter into a relationship with Him. I hope we can lead them to embrace everything He wants to reveal to them and everything He wants do in their lives, including experiences we call supernatural (they are perfectly natural to God I expect). At the A/G church I attend we’ve been reevaluating everything. We are struggling with how our particular church should look in 2007 since we have about 30 people and nobody’s been saved in this church for years.
Several factors seem to come up in trying to mesh pentecostal and emerging approaches – or any other approach for that matter. Something I’ve observed of many people 45-50 and over (I’m 48) who have grown up in A/G churches (I didn’t) is a sense of protectiveness toward preserving what they call the “Pentecostal distinctive”. Many fear that manifestations like tongues & interpretation, healings, prophecy, words of wisdom and knowledge in corporate worship will be discouraged should the church embrace an emerging approach. Some older people who have been raised A/G also seem to feel that they or their parents paid a certain price for being Pentecostal, often with socio-economic and status effects. Having endured prejudice both inside and outside Christendom, some see embracing some of the 21st century trends as selling out the Holy Spirit and their church heritage. Additionally some seek baptism in the Holy Spirit as an end experience rather than an equipping experience that ultimately points back to Christ, His person and His work. I suspect that the parameters as to what manifestations of the Holy Spirit look like vary among pentecostals, charismatics and mystics. Sincere hearts and reasonable minds can disagree on how this should look, even based on biblical descriptions and certainly based on personal accounts throughout the history of the church.
I’m wondering if the purpose of the Holy Spirit to empower both individuals and the church to fulfill the great Commission is not being overlooked both by those who seek to preserve the “Pentecostal distinctive” and, perhaps also, by those who might choose to ignore Christ’s entreaty to his followers to wait to be empowered in Jerusalem before emerging. I don’t know if it’s possible to become an emerging, purpose-driven, pentecostal, missional, multi-cultural, ancient-future, culturally relevant church but I’m willing to take the journey and have the conversation if it brings people in my community to Christ.
Hi Earl,
Would you mind posting or directing me to your definition of “fundamental”? I know you state in your book that you are “painfully orthodox” in your theology, so that would seem to put you at odds with the EC as there is quite the dog’s breakfast of orthodoxy and blatant heretical teaching within that movement.
The Musings of a 40 Something, A/G Pastor in North Carolina:
The Holy Spirit demonstrating the Power and Love of Jesus through His followers fits “hand in glove” with the Emergent Church’s Biblical, trans-generational message of bringing the presence, experience, and ongoing narrative of Jesus Christ to 21C culture.
This is what Pentecost is all about. Modern day Pentacostalism must be reduced to Jesus and the Church being the visible representatives of His Love in the earth. As the religious fluff is shaken away, I believe that the Pentecostal church will look more Emergent and the Emergent church will be more Pentecostal. I also believe that there will be less emphasis on “name tags” as we continue to move into the centrality of Jesus!
As you recommend, I checked out Bryan Thompson’s article on theOOZE.
It illustrates his inter-spiritual, emergent, synchronistic approach to spirituality which places experience over Scripture (e.g., God in everyone and everything—even those who don’t believe in God). I’ve reviewed theOOZE website and find it presents the same synchronistic approach to truth expressed by Bryan.
By referring me to theOOZE, are you promoting the views presented there? If so, even though we may both be part of the AOG, you are certainly endorsing a different gospel. And as a member of the Northern California/Nevada District, I hope Bryan’s views (such as those on centering prayer) are not reflected in your ministry in Berkeley,
Thanks for your thoughts, Earl. You are one of the few people out there who see the tension that is growing in the young Pentecostals. As a young minister who would describe myself as emergent, I am having a huge battle as whether or not to renew my ministerial license with my Pentecostal demonination (Assemblies of God).
I grew up in the A/G pentecostal circles, attending every camp and event. I was profoundly moved by the presence of God and would have to say I experienced the absolute best of the pentecostal movement, with very little of its potential and real downfalls. Therefore, when I felt called into ministry I attended an A/G college. From there, I became an A/G licensed minister and got hired as an A/G staff pastor (although in reverse order: hired first, then graduated, then licensed). I served in the church for 5 years.
Somewhere along the way, I got somewhat disenfranchised with the whole Pentecostal movement. Maybe it was the amazing lack of multicultural awareness in the denomination. Maybe it was the incredible ecumenical ministry I work with and the exciting Lutherans and Baptists and everything else I have gotten to know. Maybe it was the advanced study I’ve been getting at (non-Pentecostal) seminary that has shown me the lack of biblical support for some of the doctrines.
Now, I am faced with the decision: do I renew my credentials in a movement that I am rooted to, but have a lot of conflicts with, or do I simply move out into the emergent scene, carrying only a remnant of my “Pentecostal distinctiveness?” I am praying (yes, even in tongues) and waiting for some discernment on this decision. Dialog and discussion with other on the intersection of emergent and pentecostal is extremely helpful.
Earl,
Thanks for being an early adopter among late adopters in the AG. I have a hunch that there are many disaffected young ministers who are postmodern by nature and AG by tribe. I believe that Emergent can serve as a powerful reforming influence within our tribe.
Let me plug a renewed interest in the EM/Pentecostal conversation, for anybody who’s interested in getting their hands dirty:
http://agmergent.wordpress.com
Earl,
Love it, love you. As a young pastor living in the tension and trying to advance God’s Kingdom in the midst of a crazy world, you articulate issues in my heart wonderfully. I am ordained with the A/G, but I am definitely able to have my own tradition enriched by those who could be called “emerge-whatever.”
I have served in two churches that struggled to address the spiritual needs of the next generation. The church I am with now “gets it,” but they are not a part of the denomination I am slow to give up on. Thanks for being a smart guy with his finger on the pulse of what God is up to right now, not just what He did 50 years ago.